Template talk:Showfacts descendants
Superb work This template underpromises and overperforms. See how far it goes on John Gordon-Cuming (1734-1768)/descendants: great-great-grandchildren! — Robin Patterson (Talk) 08:10, March 7, 2010 (UTC) Other improvements to consider Going beyond 10 children I presume that Karel de Grote's apparent limitation is because this goes only to 10. Is there a performance risk in going further? If there is, can we have an optional template that goes further? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:05, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Going beyond great-great-grandchildren I can't see why it stops there. Is there an easy way to show more generations (because there's plenty of width on the average page)? Could we have options, such as a parameter for the number of generations shown (with five as the default)? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:05, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Spouses The recent addition that (sometimes) shows which spouse was the coparent is a step in the right direction, but on most pages it's an irritation. If we can get it going to more than the first generation, like an outline descendant tree on FTM or the Descendancy on WorldConnect (e.g. http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=robinp&id=I01858), it will be great. If we can't, I'd vote for the original version without spouses. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:05, March 20, 2010 (UTC) Example: Children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Joseph (Josh) White (1846-1913) 1. John White (With ) 2. Dorothea White (With ) 3. Albert White (With ) 4. Helen (Nell) White (With ) 5. Agnes White (With ) 6. Augustus White (With ) 7. Winifred White (With ) 8. Norman (Norm) White (With ) 9. Bertha (Daisy) White (With ) — Robin Patterson (Talk) 23:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC) :I agree. I would much rather have a "+ Spouse (Year-Year)" like at WorldConnect. -AMK152(talk • ) 17:02, April 8, 2010 (UTC) Please remove the "with" function It's more trouble than it's worth, in its present form. By specifying the cooperating spouse only for children who have real pages, it often completely misses the point. Example: Children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Clark L. Johnson (1833-1901) 1. William H. Johnson (With ) 2. Mary A. Johnson (With ) 3. James A. Johnson (With ) 4. Sarah Ellen Johnson (With ) 5. Laura F. Johnson (With ) 6. Addie H. Johnson (With ) 7. Charles Matthew Johnson (With ) 8. John Edward Johnson (1875-1963) (With Vienna (Young) McClure) 1. Essie L. Johnson Clark had just two spouses. This hints at many and clarifies practically nothing, mostly looking untidy and unfinished. Until it can list each spouse who helped with children, no matter whether there is a child page, and list each spouse just once (preferably in a line above the first child), it would be better without the spouse factor. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:03, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Updates "With..." I removed "with ...". "with ..." has to take its value from the page of the child because arraymaptemplate takes only one input parameter. There may be way to work around this. Hints appreciated. rtol 06:01, April 18, 2010 (UTC) :Thank you for removing the old "with". — Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC) More generations I added two generations. This is pushing against performance limits. rtol 06:01, April 18, 2010 (UTC) :Thank you for extending by two generations. Six should be enough for the standard template, and any keen programmer is welcome to create a longer one as a separate exercise, bearing in mind the performance warning. Charlemagne/descendants looks even more impressive (and I note that there is no "maximum 10 children", which there seemed to be earlier). — Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC) ::I culled one generation: Exceeds max template size. rtol 12:48, April 19, 2010 (UTC) Recently the number went up again, so that we see the individual and six generations of descendants (i.e. generation numbers 1 to 7). I noticed some discussion between rtol and the editor who extended the number. What may be happening to the above-mentioned "performance limits"? Is it possible that the page will stop at some point so that we don't see some generation 7 people and wrongly assume that there are none? That would make the extension bad. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:11, June 25, 2010 (UTC) Numbering It also looks messy. We now number: 1 Child 1 Grandchild 1 Great-grandchild 1 Great-great-grandchild 2 Child Is there a trick to do? I Child A Grandchild 1 Great-grandchild a Great-great-grandchild II Child rtol 06:01, April 18, 2010 (UTC) :WorldConnect (as in the example I gave under "Spouses" above) and FTM add a generation number before each descendant. With long pages, that is probably of more use than a number indicating position in family. Here's a shortened and slightly reformatted version of the FTM equivalent of the WorldConnect page I mentioned: Descendants of Crawfurd Pollok Gordon 0 Crawfurd Pollok GORDON b: c 5 Jul 1788 d: Aft. 1874 - +William Forlong of ERINS b: 28 Mar 1790 m: 16 Nov 1813 d: 14 Mar 1878 Mount Erins, Loch Fyne, North Knapdale? Father: William "William Forlong of Wellshott" Forlong Mother: Mary Maria FLEMING --- 1 Robina Crawfurd Pollok FORLONG b: 19 Nov 1814 ---- +(Capt) Thomas *Hamilton* MURRAY b: 21 Jan 1821 Dunse, Berwick ------ 2 George MURRAY b: 1830 to 1840 d: NZ? ------ 2 Percy MURRAY b: 1832 to 1842 ------ 2 Henry MURRAY b: 1834 to 1844 d: NZ? ------ 2 Crawford MURRAY b: 1836 to 1846 ------ 2 William MURRAY b: 1838 to 1848 d: NZ? ------ 2 Huntly Gordon MURRAY b: 15 Nov 1850 d: 29 Mar 1908 Craigie, Perth ------- +Margaret BUSHBY b: c 1850 Father: Thomas Bushby --------- 3 Amy Maria Gordon MURRAY b: c 1890 ---------- +Lars GRUNVOLD b: c 1890 m: 5 Sep 1928 --- 1 William FORLONG b: 16 Jan 1816 Glasgow, SCT d: 18 Apr 1906 Montreal, QUE, CDA ---- +Lavinia LOWE b: c 1816 Aberdeen, SCT ------ 2 William Gordon FORLONG b: 1860 ------ 2 James Cornwallis FORLONG b: 1861 ------- +Elizabeth BUZZARD b: c 1861 m: 1909 --------- 3 Thomas Hamilton FORLONG b: c 1910 ---------- +Florence PELTON b: c 1910 Montreal? --------- 3 Kathlyne FORLONG b: c 1910 d: Aft. 1979 ENG? ------ 2 Lucyn Robina Crawfurd FORLONG b: 1865 d: 1955 unmarried ------ 2 Isobella Gordon FORLONG b: 1867 ---------- +Dr CHRISTIE OF CHICAGO b: c 1867 --------- 3 five daughters CHRISTIE OF CHICAGO b: c 1890 --- 1 Lucy/Lucken FORLONG b: 22 Jun 1817 d: 15 Feb 1848 --- 1 Gordon FORLONG b: 14 Feb 1819 Pollok Castle, Paisley, RFW, SCT d: 30 Aug 1908 Rongotea, MWT, NZ ----- +Laura Isabella ANSTEY b: 18 Apr m: 15 Jan 1852 Margate, Kent d: 1854 ------ 2 Clara Laura FORLONG b: c 1852 ------- +Stephen JACOB b: c 1852 --------- 3 Hector JACOB b: c 1875 --------- 3 Philip JACOB b: c 1877 --------- 3 Eva JACOB b: c 1879 ---------- +(Rev) FREWER b: c 1879 --------- 3 Ismay JACOB b: c 1881 --------- 3 Charles JACOB b: c 1883 --------- 3 Clyde JACOB b: c 1885 ---------- +EVANGELINE b: c 1885 --------- 3 Lucy JACOB b: c 1887 ---------- +? CONLIN b: c 1887 --------- 3 Archibald JACOB b: 1889 --------- 3 Anstey JACOB b: 1893 --------- 3 Gordon JACOB b: 1895 d: May 1984 London, ENG? (The composer) ---------- +Sidney? WILMOT ---------- *2nd Wife of Gordon JACOB: ---------- +Margaret GRAY b: 1895 to 1900 m: 1959 ------ 2 Amy FORLONG b: c 1854 d: childless ---------- +Col Alfred BLOOMFIELD b: c 1854 -- *2nd Wife of Gordon FORLONG: ----- +Elizabeth Ana HOULTON b: 21 Sep 1833 St Marylebone, London ------- 2 Crawford/Crawfurd FORLONG b: 3 Aug 1858 Slains or Montrose ------- 2 Elisabeth *Adeline* Gordon FORLONG b: 25 Nov 1859 Slains, ABD, SCT ------- 2 Emilie Rose FORLONG b: 7 Nov 1860 Slains or Pitlurg, ABD, SCT ---------- +Charles D'Oyly SNOW b: c 1864 Auckland, NZ m: 15 Aug 1892 --------- 3 Charles Houlton Gordon SNOW b: 25 Aug 1895 Bunnythorpe, NZ d: 4 Mar 1982 Auckland, NZ :That could be something we can aim for, but there are much more important structural elements to fix first. :— Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC) Way to show spouse? I've just noticed that has the sort of format that a standard commercial descendant tree has. I wonder whether it may provide a clue. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:01, May 4, 2010 (UTC) Category/ies etc Good idea putting these pages in an overall category. I see Thurstan adding some by hand. Shouldn't it be built into the template? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 05:13, June 25, 2010 (UTC) OK, for some time now Category:Facts articles- descendants has been built into the template. HOWEVER, the 30,000-plus members of that category include about 15,000 (e.g. Aaron Browne (1749-1840)/descendants) that appear to have been created with the standard form from sensor pages, which adds them also to Category:Descendants pages, a category that includes Category:Facts articles- descendants and a few other pages. Seems unnecessarily and confusingly duplicative. How easy would it be to remove that cat from the standard page-creation procedure? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:19, March 20, 2017 (UTC) Problem with 1001 characters Descendancy outline for up to 8 generations of descendants of James I of England (1566-1625) 1. James I of England (1566-1625) 2. Henry Frederick Stuart, Prince Of Wales (1594-1612) 2. Elizabeth Stuart (1596-1662) 3. Error: String exceeds 1,000 character limit 2. Margaret Stuart (1598-1600) 2. Charles I of England (1600-1649) Expert, please fix if possible and discuss if not. Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:52, February 19, 2011 (UTC) Just the same on Elizabeth's desc page. Is there something really peculiar about her coding or is it a size matter that anyone with lots of descendants might suffer? --- Robin Patterson (Talk to me) 04:45, March 3, 2011 (UTC) I think it is a (new) size limit on the "explode" call. rtol has already run foul of it with too many children with long names. It would possibly effect any of the pages using SMW. Thurstan 04:58, March 3, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I misspoke: testing shows that it is the "#replace" call which now has the 1000-character limit. This is not SMW specific, but the SMW templates are probably the only place it is used with such long strings. Maybe the code can be rearranged to fix. Thurstan 05:39, March 3, 2011 (UTC) :This is indeed new. This does not just affect this particular template. Best is to inquire with Wikia whether the size limit is here to stay or whether they'll offer an alternative to replace. rtol 06:03, March 3, 2011 (UTC) A sample of problem pages: *Error message at top: **Ernst I. von Braunschweig-Lüneburg (1497-1546)/descendants **Hedwig von Brandenburg (1540-1602)/descendants *One or more errors further down: **Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor (1415-1493)/descendants **Georg von Braunschweig-Lüneburg (1582-1641)/descendants **George II of Great Britain (1683-1760)/descendants **Heinrich II. von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel (1489-1568)/descendants **Heinrich der Fromme von Sachsen (1473-1541)/descendants **Isabella I of Castile (1451-1504)/descendants **Isabella of Aragon (1247-1271)/descendants Presumably if you looked at close ancestors or descendants of these people, you would find more examples. Thurstan 06:18, March 3, 2011 (UTC) Purging These tables sometimes need republishing to display all that they can. Would it be useful to include at the bottom something like what we have on pages? This: This list may not reflect recent changes: this page. Same with the tree pages. But I'm not sure where one should place it even if it is considered to be a good idea. Expert help, please! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:02, November 23, 2017 (UTC)